Tex117 said:

---

jja79 said:

---

That has nothing to do with whether it was negotiable because it always was.

---

Dude. There is a Missouri Court case that says otherwise.

You, and everyone else arguing this, looks like a fool.

---

I understand there's a court case. I also know for a fact it has always been negotiable. Lots of us have done it as buyers and sellers. I've been involved in 100s of transactions as the lender where commissions were other than 6% as a result of negotiations.

It would seem a graduated commission scale makes sense. However the lower dollar value transactions would require the full commission and the higher the value goes the lower the commission.

But again, it's hard to tell people they make too much money. Some deals may require less work, others may require many hours and a a lot of stress. Also if an agent make a 10,000 commission on a transaction that took 4 months to complete from start to finish that put things into perspective, even if they are not working that one client 8-5 every day, the good agents make themselves available most hours of the day.

People who work 8-5 jobs don't understand having to be available at all hours of the day.

Seems to me that if you are a first time home buyer it's gonna be 6% (3/3). If you are selling a home and buying a new home there will be a negotiation with your Agent how much of their commission they are willing to give up to the buying agent.

Sure some are, I dont disagree, but most?

I think part of it too is people want services heavily discounted if not for free. But not what their own profession is, they are worth every cent if not more! Which again, if someone doesn't think an agent is worth their commission then don't hire one. It's pretty simple.

jja79 said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

jja79 said:

---

That has nothing to do with whether it was negotiable because it always was.

---

Dude. There is a Missouri Court case that says otherwise.

You, and everyone else arguing this, looks like a fool.

---

I understand there's a court case. I also know for a fact it has always been negotiable. Lots of us have done it as buyers and sellers. I've been involved in 100s of transactions as the lender where commissions were other than 6% as a result if negotiations.

---

And yet…. A Missouri court found that whatever you were doing was price fixing. And then NAR settled knowing that more suits were coming. So….

Guess you will just keep ignoring the facts of what's happening and will your reality into existence.

C@LAg said:

---

Wycliffe said:

---

People who work 8-5 jobs don't understand having to be available at all hours of the day.

---

plenty of professionals who "work 8-5" are still working until 10 or 11pm. Just from home.

I know I met with clients/oversaw staff from 8-5:30 every day... then spent 3-4 hours each night writing proposals, reviewing workpapers, doing billing, etc.

I was paid well. and got annual bonuses.

but no commissions.

and no, i do not begrudge anyone making what they can.

But the idea of commissions, to me, falls in line with "tipping".

it is rarely proportional to the services rendered based on effort.

see also: sports agents or movie star agents.

---

edit in response to "But the idea of commissions, to me, falls in line with "tipping"

Did you not have sales people that brought you those customers you spent hours with? Genuinely curious.

Logos Stick said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

The fees have never been "fixed" and the settlement hasn't even been approved by the judge yet. HTH.

---

So if they are not fixed, then why the anxiety by the agents over this?

---

Becuase 90% of them are about as educated on the topic as you and many of the other posters on this thread.

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

The fees have never been "fixed" and the settlement hasn't even been approved by the judge yet. HTH.

---

So if they are not fixed, then why the anxiety by the agents over this?

---

Becuase 90% of them are about as educated on the topic as you and many of the other posters on this thread.

---

Ok, so you have nothing to worry about. It was all for nothing. The court case, the settlement, the panic, etc. Now it's just a bit more paperwork and we are back to paying a 6% fee paid for by the seller and split between agents.



I'm going to bookmark this thread. I'll bump it when reality hits.

C@LAg said:

---

OneProudAg said:

---

edit in response to "But the idea of commissions, to me, falls in line with "tipping"

Did you not have sales people that brought you those customers you spent hours with? Genuinely curious.

---

yes. all the big accounting firms have BDMs (or equivalent acronyms) (Business Development Managers) to help generate leads and help out with proposals. But they were paid based on their own performance goals, not a percentage of business sold

And yes, as a manager, I was ALSO required to spend time and effort generating leads, upselling services, etc. to both existing and potential/new clients.

---

So you had people that physically go to locations, talked to people face to face to convince them to bring you those accounts?

Viper16 said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Viper16 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

ok, let me make sure I'm understanding you because I must not be.

You're saying you are going to ask the buyer's agent how much they are working for when they contact you to show the house on behalf of a client? And if less than 2%, you refuse to show it..

---

That's right....hard to figure out if he, as the seller's agent, is working in the interests of the seller or the buyer's agent. He suggest he's working more in the buyer's agent interests than his seller's interests by establishing a minimum fee of 2%. That's OK, I just would never contract an agent like that.

---

What he is talking about is a listing agent. Believe it or not Listing agents decline to take listings. Sometimes the seller is unreasonable of their expectations of their home's worth. Sometimes they wont do what is needed to get the home ready for the market. Experienced listing agents know that if the seller isnt going to offer a buyers agent little or no compensation, then the home will probably sit for a long time or maybe not even sell. So, why accept the listing and spend thousands upfront in marketing without getting anything in return? As I said before, buyers are getting the worst part of this deal and they are not going to want to buy homes where they have to fork out thousands to their buyers agent vs homes where the buyers agent gets compensation from the seller.

---

I'm not sure you understand the people you are "preaching to" on this board. I've bought and sold about 5 homes in 73 years of life, probably not as much as the "professionals"......So, "preaching" to me and others about the value of agents doesn't really cut it. I have used friends as agents, and other's I've never really known before. Quite frankly most have come across as know-it-alls and only hold their interests ahead of their clients.

6% on the selling price of a home is crazy and unwarranted. Now, as I said in another post, if you negotiate a commission rate on based the difference between the capital gain of the original purchase price and current sell price, you might be on to something that is more palatable to all parties. Would solve a lot of anguish in the buying and selling of real estate.

Your paragraph highlighted above is a prime example of what is wrong with real estate agents. It is a smug, holier than thou example of how real estate agents see their clients....You don't own the house/property...your client does. The client invested their hard earned money in the property. Not you. They took the risks to own it. You should be thankful the client called you to sell or buy property. Not the other way around.

Oh, one other thing, I have sold property FSBO. It ain't that hard to do.....don't make it sound like it can't be done.

---

You weren't responding directly to me, but why is 6% unwarranted? Lets take a round number like $300K -- the listing agent gets $9K and the buyers agent gets $9K. I personally get 100% of my commissions, but most agents have to pay 30% to their broker. Their payment is now down to $6,300. Now, they put back 30 to 40% in an account for taxes. So, they have around $3,780 on what they really made off your house and months of work.

With any listing I take, I bring out my guys to get the house ready. That is a complete yard makeover (mowing, edging, trimming shrubs, adding plants, putting down mulch), pressure washing the driveway, pressure washing the fence, pressure washing the house, a deep cleaning inside and professional photography. This isn't cheap, and on your average home, I am not doing this if you handicap me on attracting a buyer.

Outside of that, I maintain an email database of every agent within a 100 miles radius. I use this database to send email blasts (which the monthly fee is crazy on) to those agents, announcing your property. That doesn't even touch on the online marketing done for each listing, or open houses, if you want those. Even in the Covid boom, I still did everything outside of open houses, to drive offers to neighborhood records. As the market slows, it's going to take even more marketing and open houses to move these houses.

We haven't even gotten into the TREC fees, board fees, continuing ed, SUPRA keys/boxes, signage, etc. These fees are absolutely ridiculous.

What we're left with, isn't near as much as you think. That isn't even considering dealing with all the agents, walk-ups, appraisers, inspectors, surveyors, title company, contracts, etc.

Like I said earlier, the real money is apartment leases. I can put up ads and attract a ton of people to each ad very easily. I gather what they want, run it in my apartment database, cross check for specials, setup tours over the phone and I am done. I don't ever have to leave the office or fill out a lease and these apartments pay on average 100% of first months rent. Some used to make you escort, but after Covid, they all basically allow you to send the client now.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

The fees have never been "fixed" and the settlement hasn't even been approved by the judge yet. HTH.

---

This is a tired argument. REALTORS represent a monopolistic practice where a home owner who wants to sell and use a real estate agent signs a 6% commission agreement for the right to represent the seller for a set period of time. The sellers agent then has boilerplate agreement to split that commission with any REALTOR agent that comes to represent the seller.

The issue at play is that the seller ultimately sets the commission for a buyers agent, which is not a free market practice and creates conflicts of interest between the buyers agent the buyer and the seller. You are having to negotiate with someone who is not at the table, nor representing your interests. Furthermore, buyers commission percentages are put on the MLS, allowing agents to pass or not pass on listings that do not maximize their commission even against their clients goals.

Any 'negotiation' you have been able to do in the past has been modifying this huge anchor of a commission structure and usually done privately to preserve the looks of the 3/3 commission on the MLS.

---

It wasn't even an argument. It was a stated fact. The amount of arrogant ignorance on display throughout this thread is pretty astonishing and I'm only on page 2.

Putting realtors with a TikTok presence on my avoid list when I'm in the market.

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

The fees have never been "fixed" and the settlement hasn't even been approved by the judge yet. HTH.

---

This is a tired argument. REALTORS represent a monopolistic practice where a home owner who wants to sell and use a real estate agent signs a 6% commission agreement for the right to represent the seller for a set period of time. The sellers agent then has boilerplate agreement to split that commission with any REALTOR agent that comes to represent the seller.

The issue at play is that the seller ultimately sets the commission for a buyers agent, which is not a free market practice and creates conflicts of interest between the buyers agent the buyer and the seller. You are having to negotiate with someone who is not at the table, nor representing your interests. Furthermore, buyers commission percentages are put on the MLS, allowing agents to pass or not pass on listings that do not maximize their commission even against their clients goals.

Any 'negotiation' you have been able to do in the past has been modifying this huge anchor of a commission structure and usually done privately to preserve the looks of the 3/3 commission on the MLS.

---

It wasn't even an argument. It was a stated fact. The amount of arrogant ignorance on display throughout this thread is pretty astonishing and I'm only on page 2.

---

I honestly think this case brought to light that rates are actually negotiable. I have bought 3 homes, i'm 49 and if you are not in the real-estate industry most of the public assumed the rate was 6%.

I have been commission my entire life. My fault for being ignorant and the thousand's of dollars it has cost me over the years.

nai06 said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

NEWS FLASH: If you are a Buyer this is what is coming:

SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear. When a showing of a property is booked, the Seller is supposed to leave the home for the showing. Sellers are not going to keep doing this for unverified "curiosity seeker" buyers that may or may not be pre-approved for a mortgage loan.

1- Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission.

2-Or the buyer can wait for the listing agent to host an Open House

3-If you are an unrepresented buyer a listing agent is probably not going to waste their time kicking their seller out of their home and showing you their listing in a private showing because you will come across as a curiosity seeker or a buyer that may not be pre-approved for a loan.

---

This

"Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission"


is not going to fly!

---

Its in the NAR Settlement that everyone is so happy about. The NAR settlement really benefits the seller. But, what the sellers don't seem to understand is now they have truly limited the buyers ability to tour and buy a house and in turn will have actually shrunk the pool of potential buyers for their own home.

---

This is what jumped out at me. Think about how many people pay for their buyers agent via the actual purchase. Let's say the home you want to buy is $400K. That's an $8K-$12K commission that the buyer needs to pony up if they aren't rolling it into the purchase price. Money like that severely limits down payment cash and reno budgets.


I have had some really great buyer and seller agents over the years and they have been worth every bit of the 3%. I think part of that comes with the nature of my wife's job because agents and fees are considered the norm and people agree with their value.

Maybe this ruling will cause some of hobbyist realtors to quit but I really don't know what the shake up will look like.

---

Expect up to 40% attrition which is a good thing.

Lastly, thank you to Houston Lee for absolutely wrecking Logos Stick and proving them completely wrong at every single turn. Never seen such know it all behavior with zero clue of what is actually happening.

I will agree that the woman in the video in the OP sounds like a groveling idiot.

C@LAg said:

---

OneProudAg said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

OneProudAg said:

---

edit in response to "But the idea of commissions, to me, falls in line with "tipping"

Did you not have sales people that brought you those customers you spent hours with? Genuinely curious.

---

yes. all the big accounting firms have BDMs (or equivalent acronyms) (Business Development Managers) to help generate leads and help out with proposals. But they were paid based on their own performance goals, not a percentage of business sold

And yes, as a manager, I was ALSO required to spend time and effort generating leads, upselling services, etc. to both existing and potential/new clients.

---

So you had people that physically go to locations, talked to people face to face to convince them to bring you those accounts?

---

sometimes, yes. as that was their job and they were paid a salary and had performance goals to meet.

but they absolutely did not get a percentage of the value of the project. nor should they; as they brought no value to the engagement. which is what I argued against in my post .


edit for wordsmithing/

---

Ok, do you just deal in numbers or actual products? Physical products?

If it's always been available, why is this even an issue?

Tex100 said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

Wow. You openly admit to screwing clients over by only sending listings that benefit you. Real stand-up professional -- I'm shocked more people don't sympathize with you.

---

It has to be a deal that is worth his time. Maybe that will need to be in the agreement between the buyer and their agent - the agent will not show a home if they are getting less than 2%. You don't have to have an agent as a buyer.

---

I realize that. But the transparency you're talking about wasn't in his post. It was "if I don't get paid on a deal, I won't present it as an option." Totally unethical, but as he acknowledged, is done by agents all the time.

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

nai06 said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

NEWS FLASH: If you are a Buyer this is what is coming:

SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear. When a showing of a property is booked, the Seller is supposed to leave the home for the showing. Sellers are not going to keep doing this for unverified "curiosity seeker" buyers that may or may not be pre-approved for a mortgage loan.

1- Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission.

2-Or the buyer can wait for the listing agent to host an Open House

3-If you are an unrepresented buyer a listing agent is probably not going to waste their time kicking their seller out of their home and showing you their listing in a private showing because you will come across as a curiosity seeker or a buyer that may not be pre-approved for a loan.

---

This

"Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission"


is not going to fly!

---

Its in the NAR Settlement that everyone is so happy about. The NAR settlement really benefits the seller. But, what the sellers don't seem to understand is now they have truly limited the buyers ability to tour and buy a house and in turn will have actually shrunk the pool of potential buyers for their own home.

---

This is what jumped out at me. Think about how many people pay for their buyers agent via the actual purchase. Let's say the home you want to buy is $400K. That's an $8K-$12K commission that the buyer needs to pony up if they aren't rolling it into the purchase price. Money like that severely limits down payment cash and reno budgets.


I have had some really great buyer and seller agents over the years and they have been worth every bit of the 3%. I think part of that comes with the nature of my wife's job because agents and fees are considered the norm and people agree with their value.

Maybe this ruling will cause some of hobbyist realtors to quit but I really don't know what the shake up will look like.

---

Expect up to 40% attrition which is a good thing.

Lastly, thank you to Houston Lee for absolutely wrecking Logos Stick and proving them completely wrong at every single turn. Never seen such know it all behavior with zero clue of what is actually happening.

I will agree that the woman in the video in the OP sounds like a groveling idiot.

---

He didn't wreck a damn thing. Everything he's posted is complete speculation. Just like the **** your posting.

I think it's serious wish casting.

We shall see.

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

If it's always been available, why is this even an issue?

---

It's an issue because it causes more needless work and wastes money. I am sure the yearly board/MLS fees (which are thousands, can be 10's of thousands if you need access to multiple areas) will be raised to cover this. It also creates confusion, which is evident in this small sample of a thread.


NAR agreed to pay a fine, no longer list commissions on the MLS and require all Realtors to have their clients sign buyer reps. Buyer Rep Agreements have always been a standard practice. Hiding the commission is all this does. That is it! This isn't some game changer. This was a money grab for the lawyers and clickbait for the media.

Quote:

---

In addition to the financial payment, NAR has agreed to put in place a new MLS rule prohibiting offers of broker compensation on the MLS. This would mean that offers of broker compensation could not be communicated via the MLS, but they could continue to be an option consumers can pursue off-MLS through negotiation and consultation with real estate professionals. Offers of compensation help make professional representation more accessible, decrease costs for home buyers to secure these services, increase fair housing opportunities, and increase the potential buyer pool for sellers. They are also consistent with the real estate laws in the many states that expressly authorize them.

Further, NAR has agreed to enact a new rule that would require MLS participants working with buyers to enter into written agreements with their buyers. NAR continues, as it has done for years, to encourage its members to use buyer brokerage agreements that help consumers understand exactly what services and value will be provided, and for how much. These changes will go into effect in mid-July 2024.

---

https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/nar-reaches-agreement-to-resolve-nationwide-claims-brought-by-home-sellers

Ed Harley said:

---

Tex100 said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

Wow. You openly admit to screwing clients over by only sending listings that benefit you. Real stand-up professional -- I'm shocked more people don't sympathize with you.

---

It has to be a deal that is worth his time. Maybe that will need to be in the agreement between the buyer and their agent - the agent will not show a home if they are getting less than 2%. You don't have to have an agent as a buyer.

---

I realize that. But the transparency you're talking about wasn't in his post. It was "if I don't get paid on a deal, I won't present it as an option." Totally unethical, but as he acknowledged, is done by agents all the time.

---

How come you ignored my reply to you? I asked you to quote or highlight the portion where you believe that I implied what you're accusing me of. I am still waiting on that. Just because I stated what is going to happen, and has happened in the past.... That doesn't implicate me in that and I didn't implicate myself.

Edit - Oh, and I love the new reply. I bet if you didn't get paid to go to work, you would still show up, right?

wessimo said:

---

"The seller pays the commissions" is such a ridiculously idiotic take.

The BUYER is the one taking out the loan and/or writing the check for an amount that includes those commissions.

---

So every property sells for list price? And every commission is baked in and paid by the buyer ultimately?

You know.. the price that was agreed upon by the seller's agent and the seller.. the one that the net proceeds were calculated off of which included a debit in the amount of the total commissions to be paid?

Example:

List price - $300k
Expected commission - $18k.
Proceeds net of commission - $282k

Actual sale price - $285k
Commission - $17.1k
Proceeds net of commission - $267,900k

Difference in seller net - $14.1k

If the commission were built in to the price, why is the seller taking a $14k hit from their expectation? Looks like the seller took 94% of the hit. Each agent took a 3% hit. Buyer got a nice discount, slightly lower closings costs, possibly a lower loan amount or larger equity % in the home.

I did a FSBO years ago and it was easy as hell. Buyer and I agreed on a price and had the title company do all the work. We showed up to sign paperwork, etc. and saved 6%. Realtors are becoming a relic of a bygone era. In 5-10 years, they may not even exist anymore.

Baseball Is Life said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Tex100 said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

Wow. You openly admit to screwing clients over by only sending listings that benefit you. Real stand-up professional -- I'm shocked more people don't sympathize with you.

---

It has to be a deal that is worth his time. Maybe that will need to be in the agreement between the buyer and their agent - the agent will not show a home if they are getting less than 2%. You don't have to have an agent as a buyer.

---

I realize that. But the transparency you're talking about wasn't in his post. It was "if I don't get paid on a deal, I won't present it as an option." Totally unethical, but as he acknowledged, is done by agents all the time.

---

How come you ignored my reply to you? I asked you to quote or highlight the portion where you believe that I implied what you're accusing me of. I am still waiting on that. Just because I stated what is going to happen, and has happened in the past.... That doesn't implicate me in that and I didn't implicate myself.

Edit - Oh, and I love the new reply. I bet if you didn't get paid to go to work, you would still show up, right?

---

I didn't ignore your reply. Staff deleted, presumably because you flagged it.

I never said I would go to work if I didn't get paid. I said I wouldn't **** over my client to get paid, which is what you said buyer's agents would do by not passing along certain listings. Stop acting like you're wearing the white hat in this. You're not. You're the problem by defending these shady tactics.

Tex117 said:

---

jja79 said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

jja79 said:

---

That has nothing to do with whether it was negotiable because it always was.

---

Dude. There is a Missouri Court case that says otherwise.

You, and everyone else arguing this, looks like a fool.

---

I understand there's a court case. I also know for a fact it has always been negotiable. Lots of us have done it as buyers and sellers. I've been involved in 100s of transactions as the lender where commissions were other than 6% as a result if negotiations.

---

And yet…. A Missouri court found that whatever you were doing was price fixing. And then NAR settled knowing that more suits were coming. So….

Guess you will just keep ignoring the facts of what's happening and will your reality into existence.

---

The facts are that people have been paying less for years and negotiating commission. I see what's going on. I understand it. I'm going to be in a related business for 2 more days and know what I've seen in thousands of RE transactions.

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

I did a FSBO years ago and it was easy as hell. Buyer and I agreed on a price and had the title company do all the work. We showed up to sign paperwork, etc. and saved 6%. Realtors are becoming a relic of a bygone era. In 5-10 years, they may not even exist anymore.

---

Bad Realtors and bottom feeders will for sure be gone. And it's needed. I'm in favor of making the entrance testing 10x harder. It's a joke right now.

But Realtors aren't going away. I'd be willing to bet you a lot of money on that.

Now if only we could go after lawyers, the over inflated healthcare and pharma industries, and simplify the tax code to rid ourselves of hundreds of thousands of useless accountants who only exist because of a purposely overly complicated tax code, with the same passion we attack Realtors with.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

wessimo said:

---

"The seller pays the commissions" is such a ridiculously idiotic take.

The BUYER is the one taking out the loan and/or writing the check for an amount that includes those commissions.

---

So every property sells for list price? And every commission is baked in and paid by the buyer ultimately?

You know.. the price that was agreed upon by the seller's agent and the seller.. the one that the net proceeds were calculated off of which included a debit in the amount of the total commissions to be paid?

Example:

List price - $300k
Expected commission - $18k.
Proceeds net of commission - $282k

Actual sale price - $285k
Commission - $17.1k
Proceeds net of commission - $267,900k

Difference in seller net - $14.1k

If the commission were built in to the price, why is the seller taking a $14k hit from their expectation? Looks like the seller took 94% of the hit. Each agent took a 3% hit. Buyer got a nice discount, slightly lower closings costs, possibly a lower loan amount or larger equity % in the home.

---

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Even if the buyer gets the house below the list price, they are ultimately still writing the check that pays the commissions.

Ed Harley said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Tex100 said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

Wow. You openly admit to screwing clients over by only sending listings that benefit you. Real stand-up professional -- I'm shocked more people don't sympathize with you.

---

It has to be a deal that is worth his time. Maybe that will need to be in the agreement between the buyer and their agent - the agent will not show a home if they are getting less than 2%. You don't have to have an agent as a buyer.

---

I realize that. But the transparency you're talking about wasn't in his post. It was "if I don't get paid on a deal, I won't present it as an option." Totally unethical, but as he acknowledged, is done by agents all the time.

---

How come you ignored my reply to you? I asked you to quote or highlight the portion where you believe that I implied what you're accusing me of. I am still waiting on that. Just because I stated what is going to happen, and has happened in the past.... That doesn't implicate me in that and I didn't implicate myself.

Edit - Oh, and I love the new reply. I bet if you didn't get paid to go to work, you would still show up, right?

---

I didn't ignore your reply. Staff deleted, presumably because you flagged it.

I never said I would go to work if I didn't get paid. I said I wouldn't **** over my client to get paid, which is what you said buyer's agents would do by not passing along certain listings. Stop acting like you're wearing the white hat in this. You're not. You're the problem by defending these shady tactics.

---

It's a problem in the real estate industry. Him being honest about the state of things is not him supporting it. You can thank NAR. They are the biggest professional lobbying group in the country and will do anything to protect their model. This is a speed bump for them. You want real change, you want to get rid of the many shady and useless agents, it's going to take more than this ruling. Unfortunately.

wessimo said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

wessimo said:

---

"The seller pays the commissions" is such a ridiculously idiotic take.

The BUYER is the one taking out the loan and/or writing the check for an amount that includes those commissions.

---

So every property sells for list price? And every commission is baked in and paid by the buyer ultimately?

You know.. the price that was agreed upon by the seller's agent and the seller.. the one that the net proceeds were calculated off of which included a debit in the amount of the total commissions to be paid?

Example:

List price - $300k
Expected commission - $18k.
Proceeds net of commission - $282k

Actual sale price - $285k
Commission - $17.1k
Proceeds net of commission - $267,900k

Difference in seller net - $14.1k

If the commission were built in to the price, why is the seller taking a $14k hit from their expectation? Looks like the seller took 94% of the hit. Each agent took a 3% hit. Buyer got a nice discount, slightly lower closings costs, possibly a lower loan amount or larger equity % in the home.

---

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Even if the buyer gets the house below the list price, they are ultimately still writing the check that pays the commissions.

---

A house is worth what a house is worth. There is no.. this house is $285k but I'm going to list it as $300k to cover the 6% Realtor fees out of my pocket. Now, over time.. especially how long the shared commission model has been in place, you could argue that home prices naturally inflated slightly higher than their worth. But I doubt you could provide concrete proof of that. If you can, I'd love to see it.

When I do a multifamily deal and a buyer's rep tries to bring me a deal, there's always a caveat that we (the buyer) pay his fee. Why? Because it's not baked into the price. It's a separate line item tacked onto our closing costs.

Realtor fees are not included in the mortgaged amount. The only way you can get close is if you can convince your Realtor to take a reduced fee and have the seller drop the price by the same amount.

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

I did a FSBO years ago and it was easy as hell. Buyer and I agreed on a price and had the title company do all the work. We showed up to sign paperwork, etc. and saved 6%. Realtors are becoming a relic of a bygone era. In 5-10 years, they may not even exist anymore.

---

Not saying you did because I have no idea about that transaction but the vast majority of the cases I've seen where sellers lost money was FSBO..Just because you took one line item on your net sheet to zero doesn't mean you netted more than you might have.

Old May Banker said:

---

Meh.... RE commissions, like most other things, are negotiable. Don't look at your HUD-1 and see what everyone from the title company to the attorney to the title insurance company to the surveyor makes if the commission makes you upset.

---

HUD-1 is a real blast from the past. Isn't it 9 years now since that went away? I still think it's superior to the Closing Disclosure.